re-imagining history

DaireQuinlan

Wow. This is all wrong on a number of different levels ...

http://lightbox.time.com/2012/10/25/a-vibrant-past-colorizing-the-archives-of-history

The last one in particular just left me completely aghast. There are more insidious errors there though (if they even ARE errors and aren't completely deliberate). Lincoln, for example, describes himself as having a swarthy complexion and grey eyes. This re-colorisation of him as a light skinned and blue eyed Übermensch smacks of historical revisionism at the very least...

magicbastarder

are you referring to the shot where he's standing in front of the tent?

DaireQuinlan

magicbastarder wrote: »

are you referring to the shot where he's standing in front of the tent?

Specifically the 'formal portrait' one, but the others too, it's just not as clear. I don't think Dorothea Lange would think much either of her freshly scrubbed and clean cut 'migrant mother' either.

magicbastarder

i think i'm having a brain fart, i can't find it.

DaireQuinlan

magicbastarder wrote: »

i think i'm having a brain fart, i can't find it.

http://lightbox.time.com/2012/10/25/a-vibrant-past-colorizing-the-archives-of-history/?iid=lb-gal-viewagn#3

It's only the second one in the slideshow

magicbastarder

aha!
the link above was to the very last slide, which is links to other lightbox articles. i hadn't realised it was a slideshow...

magicbastarder

actually, i think i have more of a problem with tinkering with ones like the self-immolation shot; playing with photos of hitchcock and the like is not a big issue, but playing with iconic images of photojournalism cheapens what is a powerful image. it adds nothing except an air of slight disbelief, because you know you cannot trust what you are seeing is what would have been the scene.

i suspect the lincoln oversight is a result to someone getting carried away with the technology without researching the reality.

DaireQuinlan

magicbastarder wrote: »

aha!
the link above was to the very last slide, which is links to other lightbox articles. i hadn't realised it was a slideshow...

woops, my bad. I've removed the #end from the URL. I posted it after I'd finished looking through the entire thing.

DaireQuinlan

magicbastarder wrote: »

actually, i think i have more of a problem with tinkering with ones like the self-immolation shot; playing with photos of hitchcock and the like is not a big issue, but playing with iconic images of photojournalism cheapens what is a powerful image. it adds nothing except an air of slight disbelief, because you know you cannot trust what you are seeing is what would have been the scene.

Yeah I agree, and her justification for it is so ... vapid ...

“I thought the normally fiery flames looked so dull in black and white, so I…looked for a way to make them come alive,” she says. Dullaway colorized the flames, and eventually, the entire picture. She then posted the image on Reddit, and it instantly went viral.

magicbastarder wrote: »

i suspect the lincoln oversight is a result to someone getting carried away with the technology without researching the reality.

But wouldn't that be the FIRST THING THAT YOU'D DO if you were, y'know, trying to 'make history come alive' ??!? Actually check what colour Lincoln's eyes were ? Naturally any strong leader must have been pale of skin and blue of eye ! It smacks so much of institutionalised notions of nordic supremacy or something, it's creepy.

magicbastarder

yep; if you were to ascribe lincoln's background to any race, it certainly would not be to a scandinavian one.

dakar

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Yeah I agree, and her justification for it is so ... vapid ...

That's what really bugged me.

CianRyan

It doesn't help that a lot of the images are more striking in black and white.

Splinters

Am I the only one who doesnt see the harm in them. If they started appearing in text books it would be different but I thought they were pretty interesting for a casual glance.

sprinkles

Some of them looked almost as if they were wax works. Good luck to her, I won't be buying her book!

Promac

I quite like a lot of them. Some are badly done and look cartoonish but some are actually more appealing to me. Adding colour helps remove some of the subjectivity when people look at photographs - we're far too romantic about black & white, grain, out of focus, dust and scratches - see instagram for innumerable examples of taking a perfectly focused, clear picture and making it look "better" by removing colour and quality.

This one in particular I think is a great improvement:


I don't for a second think many people will agree with me though. Too many hipsters in this group.

Borderfox

Just wrong...

"She was so preoccupied with whether or not she could, she didn't stop to think if she should"

Effects

Promac wrote: »

I don't for a second think many people will agree with me though. Too many hipsters in this group.

I don't think you know what a hipster is.

Promac

Effects wrote: »

I don't think you know what a hipster is.

And that's contributing to the thread how?

CianRyan

Promac wrote: »

And that's contributing to the thread how?

It contributes no less than calling everyone hipsters.

Promac

CianRyan wrote: »

It contributes no less than calling everyone hipsters.

I added my opinion to the discussion and then added why I didn't think a lot of people would agree with me. Personally I'll take a nice, clean, digital photo any day over expired film from a holga but a significant amount of people in this group are the exact opposite. That kind of photography is widely known as "hipster" and there are a lot of people in this forum who will like a photo more if fits that category. Which is why I think they'll not agree with me on my opinion of the current subject.

You guys are adding nothing but agro.

magicbastarder

do many people here still use a holga? or are you trying to create a straw man?
the debate about these photos has absolutely nothing to do with 'hipster photography'.

CianRyan

Promac wrote: »

I added my opinion to the discussion and then added why I didn't think a lot of people would agree with me. Personally I'll take a nice, clean, digital photo any day over expired film from a holga but a significant amount of people in this group are the exact opposite. That kind of photography is widely known as "hipster" and there are a lot of people in this forum who will like a photo more if fits that category. Which is why I think they'll not agree with me on my opinion of the current subject.

You guys are adding nothing but agro.

Well like you I added my opinion on the subject so by your logic I've done no wrong?
I wouldn't say the original BW pictures are "holgaish" at all, some aren't perfect but what do you expect with pictures of Lincoln?
I'd rather see it as it was intended and not what some woman with PS decided she wanted to make it look like. Calling someone a hipster because of that is as you put it, "agro".

Also, calling someone a hipster because they prefar the look of film is laughable, that's all I'll say on this anyway. I don't want to completely derail the thread.

Effects

Promac wrote: »

And that's contributing to the thread how?

You're just buying into the whole played out hipster label and it's irrelevant in this discussion. Who cares if not everyone sees things the same way as you do.
I find these colourations amusing when I see them but as has already been mentioned, what's the point if it's not accurately represented?

Promac

magicbastarder wrote: »

do many people here still use a holga? or are you trying to create a straw man?
the debate about these photos has absolutely nothing to do with 'hipster photography'.

I love how the term "straw man" is used in every boards.ie thread where there's a disagreement these days. People need to broaden their vocabularies. But no, it's nothing like that at all. In fact if you want to see a straw man argument just look at how CianRyan says "calling someone a hipster because they prefar the look of film is laughable". I never said anything of the sort but he's criticising me for it anyway.

Do I think the people here all run around with Holgas, twirling their handlebar moustaches while wearing cardigans on steel bikes from the 50s? Of course not, it's simple hyperbole. The point I was making was that a lot of people here prefer photographs that are old and scratched and faded and "vintage" - add any of the effects from the average instagram here. It's commonly referred to as a hipster syle - there's a whole movement and anti-movement and anyone claiming ignorance here is full of it.

The reason I'm brought up hipsters in this context is because I don't see any other reason to prefer the original, stained, faded and scratched versions of these images to the clearer, sharper versions that this girl has produced. And again, I said I only like some of them and I don't think they're all improvements but yeah some of them are definitely better documentary images and give you more information about the subjects as they were at the time.

This following one is a great example - the new one gives you a far better idea of what Lincoln might have looked like and the removal of the stains and dust removes a lot of the distracting elements of the photograph, allowing the original composition to stand on its own merit. CianRyan says "I'd rather see it as it was intended" but I'm damn sure the photographer didn't intend it to be faded, scratched and stained and would most likely have shot it in colour too if possible. The sharpening adds a clarity to the eyes that is missing from the original photo or was lost during reproductions. In the original, only his mouth was sharp - is it supposed to be a portrait of Lincoln or a still life of Lincoln's beard? Effects says "what's the point if it's not accurately represented?" and I say the same thing - but the photograph is only the medium, Lincoln was the subject.



The following picture probably suits the argument for adding colour a lot more. Look how the billboard really sticks out and shows off the idea of America as this paradise with lush green fields full of prosperity and happy blonde people in their shiny blue car. You only notice the red, white and blue at the top when it's in colour too and that definitely adds to the impact of the image. I also think the coloured version of V-J Day in Times Square (the sailor kissing the nurse) is an improvement and that the photographer would likely have used colour film if it had been practical.



Can't wait to see what gets cherry-picked out of all that.

CabanSail

Please keep the discussion relevant to topic. It is an interesting subject and one that will attract varied opinions.

Continued de-railing could result in infractions or holidays.

(not aimed at anyone in particular)

Play nice!

DaireQuinlan

Promac wrote: »

... I don't see any other reason to prefer the original, stained, faded and scratched versions of these images to the clearer, sharper versions that this girl has produced.

seems more like a failure of imagination on your part. Or reading comprehension.
How about this. Colourising a picture of Anne Frank or a picture of a monk burning himself to death on a crossroads so that it'll go 'viral on reddit' and you can promote your vintage photograph recolouring business is, simply, obscene.

In addition, these aren't simply photographs, they've become cultural objects. Colourising them is mis-representing them. They have been re-interpreted through the lens of a modern white middle class woman. And that re-interpretation is what is wrong.

Promac wrote: »

You only notice the red, white and blue at the top when it's in colour too and that definitely adds to the impact of the image.

Case in point. How do you know the stripes were red white and blue ?

magicbastarder

my straw man argument was referring to the point you were making about people preferring the originals because they're scratched and faded. that is not the argument. hence straw man is a valid use of terminology.

most people would *prefer* if the originals had been better preserved, and were not as scratched and faded. what is at issue here is the integrity of what have become historical documents.

i could try to take an official account of an historical event, and sex it up a bit by adding detail (which would have the potential to be true, but would a guess on my part), but this means it is no longer a historical document, it becomes a work of fiction. which is fine, if i present it as a work of fiction.

but the line between fiction and fact is being blurred in these photos. they're trying to present themselves as what the scene looked like in colour.

i don't like instagram, and pseudo-aged effects. many people who don't like the effect above don't like instagram and the pseudo-aged effects. for the same reason i don't like the false colour, not contrary to that reason.

Promac

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

seems more like a failure of imagination on your part. Or reading comprehension.
How about this. Colourising a picture of Anne Frank or a picture of a monk burning himself to death on a crossroads so that it'll go 'viral on reddit' and you can promote your vintage photograph recolouring business is, simply, obscene.

In addition, these aren't simply photographs, they've become cultural objects. Colourising them is mis-representing them. They have been re-interpreted through the lens of a modern white middle class woman. And that re-interpretation is what is wrong.

Case in point. How do you know the stripes were red white and blue ?

"cultural objects"? Are you having a laugh or what? These are documentary photographs - not pieces of art to be hung in a gallery. You're acting like the photographs are more important than the subjects or their actions and that's far more obscene than anything this woman has done! As if the photograph of the guy setting himself on fire is more important than what he did... Maybe we should just let these original prints fade to white and then forget about them? That would be more faithful to the original photographs wouldn't it?

We're talking about photographs that were taken in order to preserve the memory of specific events and people. This is not a Da Vinci painting or Michelangelo's David - we're not talking about pieces of art that have to be preserved as-is. What the hell is wrong with a picture of Anne Frank in colour? Do you honestly think that whoever took it wouldn't have preferred a 5DIII in order to preserve Anne's appearance a lot better than a crappy little black & white photo? Or, to suit your tastes better, a nice 35mm with colour film in it and a 50mm lens?

You're criticising this woman because you say she did it to "go viral on reddit" and promote some sort of business? Come off it Daire - even a cursory glance over the article disproves that little fallacy and a quick google yields: "I thought I'd show my best colourizations and some restorations that I've been doing for fun. Hope you enjoy!" (my emphasis).

The photographs in question would have been a lot better originally had the technology allowed and it's not like the originals are going anywhere as a result! Indignation as a result of some woman from Sweden adding colour to some old photographs... talk about first world problems!

How do I know the stripes where red, white and blue? Because I took an educated guess - like this woman obviously did. Did we get it wrong? Maybe! But I'd be very surprised.

magicbastarder

Promac wrote: »

We're talking about photographs that were taken in order to preserve the memory of specific events and people. This is not a Da Vinci painting or Michelangelo's David - we're not talking about pieces of art that have to be preserved as-is. What the hell is wrong with a picture of Anne Frank in colour? Do you honestly think that whoever took it wouldn't have preferred a 5DIII in order to preserve Anne's appearance a lot better than a crappy little black & white photo? Or, to suit your tastes better, a nice 35mm with colour film in it and a 50mm lens?

quit with the personal attacks, it's undermining your argument.

i'd take a different view to your comments above. i'd argue that since paintings are works of art, rather than historical documents, it's open season on doing what you want to them (not the originals, natch).

anyway, it's not about what the photographer would have preferred, it's about what was actually recorded. it's moot as to whether he'd have preferred a bells-and-whistles DSLR, because we cannot recreate what would have been captured with one.

the colorisation of the anne frank pic i don't mind as much as the job done on the monk. my main objection is that it's tacky.

magicbastarder

on a lighter, but related, note; look at how star wars fans reacted to george lucas 'improving' the star wars movies.

Promac

magicbastarder wrote: »

my straw man argument was referring to the point you were making about people preferring the originals because they're scratched and faded. that is not the argument. hence straw man is a valid use of terminology.

most people would *prefer* if the originals had been better preserved, and were not as scratched and faded. what is at issue here is the integrity of what have become historical documents.

i could try to take an official account of an historical event, and sex it up a bit by adding detail (which would have the potential to be true, but would a guess on my part), but this means it is no longer a historical document, it becomes a work of fiction. which is fine, if i present it as a work of fiction.

but the line between fiction and fact is being blurred in these photos. they're trying to present themselves as what the scene looked like in colour.

i don't like instagram, and pseudo-aged effects. many people who don't like the effect above don't like instagram and the pseudo-aged effects. for the same reason i don't like the false colour, not contrary to that reason.

Like I said above, no-one's interfering with the "integrity" of anything as the original photographs remain untouched so the entire argument against them is completely pointless. Regardless, all history is interpretation of events but in this case there's not a lot of room for it and in the case of photo restoration, sometimes the "originals" have more distortion than the restorations. Look at the picture of Lincoln above - look how much crap there is around him and how the top half of his face is out of focus. Is that faithful to how the photographer wanted to capture him? No, it's most certainly not!

"they're trying to present themselves as what the scene looked like in colour" - yes, that's quite obvious. What is your problem with that? From a historical point of view, colour is a lot more accurate than black & white, unless you're suggesting the only colour Lincoln ever saw was sepia?

Promac

magicbastarder wrote: »

quit with the personal attacks, it's undermining your argument.

i'd take a different view to your comments above. i'd argue that since paintings are works of art, rather than historical documents, it's open season on doing what you want to them (not the originals, natch).

anyway, it's not about what the photographer would have preferred, it's about what was actually recorded. it's moot as to whether he'd have preferred a bells-and-whistles DSLR, because we cannot recreate what would have been captured with one.

the colorisation of the anne frank pic i don't mind as much as the job done on the monk. my main objection is that it's tacky.

What personal attack?? It's comments like this that prohibit discussion in this group. Disagreement is not an attack!

magicbastarder

i misread your comment re DQ using film, i thought it was a bit more pointed.

pete4130

Guys, give Prowac a break. You're all just jealous you didn't think of it and do it first, to make stacks o' greenbacks.

I F*CKING love being a hipster.

DaireQuinlan

Promac wrote: »

What personal attack?? It's comments like this that prohibit discussion in this group. Disagreement is not an attack!

Or maybe comments that reframe something as a complete strawman (as MB quite rightly pointed out) and then proceed to pre-emptively dismiss anyone who might disagree with that strawman as a 'hipster' are what are prohibiting discussion in this group ?

Also, I don't know what google you're using, but If I google the artist the very first link is to her deviantart page, where she announces that

"I recently started a business in restoring and colourizing old black & white photographs! I will also upload more of my work here on DA so +watch me if you want to follow me here."

The SECOND link is to her business page where she sells prints and posters and announces her upcoming book of recoloured historical prints. This is also linked on the Times article.

I personally don't think it's appropriate to use pictures of people who died in the holocaust to promote a business, but hey, YMMV.

AnCatDubh

Most of these are kind of akin in the music world to The Clash being played on pan flutes... :eek: (now there's a sound that will never be prised from your minds).

I guess they are a form of art of somekind or other (like The Clash of pan flutes must be, like somewhere....) hence everyone will interpret them differently.

Was there a need to do it? Most are classic images and don't gain anything by adding a healthy dose of faux-ness to them.

Why distort the artists original intention? Because you can? Not good enough.

I've nothing against anyone tinkering with classic images. I actually like some of the "dear photograph" stuff, albeit usually there's a little story to be had there.

I would have a lot more respect for the efforts if they had recreated the images rather than touched them up in photoshop. I know, I know, most of the subjects are dead so you'd have to improvise, and then it wouldn't be the real thing anyway, but improvisation at least means there is effort put in towards the creative process and that effort I could appreciate.

Yes, its amazing that photoshop can do such things as has been done to these images but there are things which photoshop though technically capable of, actually shouldn't be used to do. For me, this is one of them.

DaireQuinlan

Promac wrote: »

"they're trying to present themselves as what the scene looked like in colour" - yes, that's quite obvious. What is your problem with that? From a historical point of view, colour is a lot more accurate than black & white, unless you're suggesting the only colour Lincoln ever saw was sepia?

http://picayune.uclick.com/comics/ch/1993/ch930919.gif

DaireQuinlan

Also ..

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/.a/6a00df351e888f8834017c32f7dc18970b-800wi

/thread.

Promac

AnCatDubh wrote: »

Yes, its amazing that photoshop can do such things as has been done to these images but there are things which photoshop though technically capable of, actually shouldn't be used to do. For me, this is one of them.

Not for me. And I don't think the pan flute analogy fits. It's more like taking an old recording of a famous speaker or important event and removing the noise and crackle.

Clearly getting nowhere fast here though. Why am I not surprised?

sprinkles

Promac wrote: »

Not for me. And I don't think the pan flute analogy fits. It's more like taking an old recording of a famous speaker or important event and removing the noise and crackle.

Clearly getting nowhere fast here though. Why am I not surprised?

Why do you have an attitude that no one here will listen/respect your opinion? Most people here are merely disagreeing with you and not saying that you are wrong to have your opinion.

I personally don't like those images, whether or not they should have been done. I think certain images should be left alone. Some of them, as I mentioned previously, make Lincoln look like a wax work model of himself - completely unrealistic looking (see the picture Daire linked above for instance).

One thing that I did take from this thread has been the meaning of Strawman. Never heard of that before

magicbastarder

Promac wrote: »

Not for me. And I don't think the pan flute analogy fits. It's more like taking an old recording of a famous speaker or important event and removing the noise and crackle.

Clearly getting nowhere fast here though. Why am I not surprised?

i'd say a closer analogy would be dust and scratch removal.

it's not a failing on our part that we don't agree with you.

AnCatDubh

Promac wrote: »

Clearly getting nowhere fast here though. Why am I not surprised?

I wasn't actually replying to anything which you or any of the other contributors posted except for Daire's original post

Promac wrote: »

Not for me. And I don't think the pan flute analogy fits. It's more like taking an old recording of a famous speaker or important event and removing the noise and crackle.

I disagree with you. I think what you are referring to is digitally remastering of music which removes the noise, crackles and so forth. It doesn't add a new musical audio spectrum to the original, rendering it pure gick. This is why my comparison is to a pan pipe's take on a genre so far removed from it as to most likely render it gick. Its not that technically the pan pipes can't play the notes which The Clash play, but it is more likely that for some (and I suspect most), the pan pipes shouldn't play The Clash.

(Don't get me wrong on the pan pipe thing. The 2012 classical young musician of the year is a pan pipe player and fair play to him. He was pretty amazing at what he did. But he didn't perform London Calling to win his accolade. He performed music of a kind which was appropriate to both the instrument and the instrument's genre)

I'm not having a go at anyone. I just don't think the takes on the images which were presented in the original post of the thread did anything for the art form other than rendering most of them as pure gick.

Promac

sprinkles wrote: »

Why do you have an attitude that no one here will listen/respect your opinion? Most people here are merely disagreeing with you and not saying that you are wrong to have your opinion.

Many people have stopped coming and posting here because of how certain people respond to certain other people. There's an obvious clique here and it's hostile to anyone who doesn't hold the same ideas as they do.

I could most likely predict who'll come along next to feign indignation and I could probably also predict exactly what she'll say too.

Edit - and, though it clearly doesn't need to be said now, I'll get my coat, thanks.

Promac

AnCatDubh wrote: »

I wasn't actually replying to anything which you or any of the other contributors posted except for Daire's original post

I wasn't responding to you there, sorry - I was just making a general statement.

magicbastarder

Promac wrote: »

I could most likely predict who'll come along next to feign indignation and I could probably also predict exactly what she'll say too.

dear me. and you give out about other people's debating style?

NooSixty

Promac wrote: »

Many people have stopped coming and posting here because of how certain people respond to certain other people. There's an obvious clique here and it's hostile to anyone who doesn't hold the same ideas as they do.

I could most likely predict who'll come along next to feign indignation and I could probably also predict exactly what she'll say too.

Edit - and, though it clearly doesn't need to be said now, I'll get my coat, thanks.

I totally agree with you there Promac! It's awful how certain people make it almost impossible for other people to post and offer their opinion on this forum because of the barrage of hostility and personal attacks they cop.